You are viewing this article in the AnnArbor.com archives. For the latest breaking news and updates in Ann Arbor and the surrounding area, see MLive.com/ann-arbor

Posted on Mon, Jun 17, 2013 : 9:32 a.m.

Man arrested after 'dine and dash' in Ypsilanti

By Kyle Feldscher

Ypsilanti police arrested a 28-year-old man for a “dine and dash” at a city restaurant late Sunday night.

Police responded at 11 p.m. Sunday to a restaurant in the 700 block of West Cross Street for a report of defrauding an innkeeper. According to police, two men fled the restaurant without paying their bill.

Upon arrival, police tracked down one of the men and placed him under arrest for defrauding an innkeeper. The second man remains at large.

Multiple restaurants are listed in the 700 block of West Cross Street. It is Ypsilanti police policy to typically not release the names of businesses affected by a crime.

No substantive description of the second suspect was released Monday morning.

Anyone with information on this incident is encouraged to call the Ypsilanti police at 734-483-9510.

Comments

Solitude

Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 4:34 p.m.

I'd be interested to hear why Honest Abe believes anyone not directly involved in a criminal matter is &quot;entitled&quot; to anything other than generic information. The fact is, you are NOT entitled. The rights of a victim/business to try to keep their identity private is overwhelmingly more important than any busy-body interest you may have in details that don't concern you and that have no bearing whatsoever on the main points of the story, which are two guys left w/o paying, and one guy got arrested. If and when the arrested guy gets arraigned, you'll be able to read his name in the paper. That's it.

Messa

Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 1:22 a.m.

Do people really still use the word &quot;Innkeeper&quot;? I love it !!

Brad

Mon, Jun 17, 2013 : 11:47 p.m.

You cannot have seriously removed the comments referencing the immortal dialogue from Repo Man:
Debbie: &quot;Duke, let's go do those crimes!&quot;
Duke: &quot;Yeah. Let's get sushi... and not pay!&quot;

Brad

Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 12:37 a.m.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGzkQAIHTTY

Kyle Feldscher

Mon, Jun 17, 2013 : 7:50 p.m.

I'll reply to JRW's comment here so more people can see it.
Basically, when you are arrested, you are arrested on the suspicion that you committed a crime. When you are arraigned, you are formally charged and become accused of committing the crime. The difference is really a legal one. Most of the time, people who are arrested are also charged with a crime. But, there can be cases where they aren't. For instance, two people were arrested on suspicion of murdering the man in Penninsula Place earlier this year. However, prosecutors determined there wasn't enough evidence to formally charge them with the crime right now. When someone is arraigned, the court case against them begins.
The reason we do not publish names and photos after someone is arrested is simply because of what happened in that Ypsilanti case: The people might not ever be charged with a crime and, by naming them before formal charges are filed, they would be forever associated with that crime. When people are charged, there is a court case that comes up and the evidence will come out and we can see in the public sphere if someone is guilty or not guilty. However, before arraignment, all of that can be withheld under the FOIA act and it's hard to present those facts in the open.
That's really wordy. I hope that explains it a little bit more.

James

Mon, Jun 17, 2013 : 7:36 p.m.

&quot;Defrauding an innkeeper&quot;, delightfully Dickens.

JRW

Mon, Jun 17, 2013 : 7:23 p.m.

Related question about procedure, Kyle:
When are the names and photos of arrested individuals posted on AA dot com? At the time or arrest, or when they are arraigned? Can you explain the difference to readers? I'm not clear on why people arrested are not names in articles. Just curious about policy and procedures.

Paula Gardner

Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 8:18 p.m.

Thanks, MathGeek. That is the reason.

MathGeek

Mon, Jun 17, 2013 : 11:58 p.m.

They wait until there are charges. Anyone can be arrested at any time, that doesn't mean they are the person responsible. If the police do an investigation and determine they have the wrong person, no crime was really committed, the victim doesn't want to press charges, etc. it's not anyone's business. If you're facing charges, that's part of the public record, so that's when names get published.

WalkingJoe

Mon, Jun 17, 2013 : 5:49 p.m.

Maybe the reason the police don't put businesses name out is so someone else doesn't get the bright idea to rip off the same restaurant.

Jonathan Blutarsky

Mon, Jun 17, 2013 : 4:38 p.m.

I'm betting it was the Wurst bar. Their Lobster rolls are almost worth going to jail for!

Ypsi Citizen

Mon, Jun 17, 2013 : 4:05 p.m.

I thought dine-n-dash was a mobile game for android.

YpsiYapper

Mon, Jun 17, 2013 : 4:22 p.m.

Sounds like you might be one of those out of town bankers that I see on billboards all over the area. (j/k) :)

Bob Krzewinski

Mon, Jun 17, 2013 : 4:05 p.m.

Funny how people make statements the aa.com is withholding information when they themselves will not even use their real name online!

a2citizen

Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 12:26 a.m.

Yeah, right, like somebody would really name their kid Bob.

towncryer

Mon, Jun 17, 2013 : 3:19 p.m.

I thought dine and dash was a lost art....I guess not.

dading dont delete me bro

Mon, Jun 17, 2013 : 3:12 p.m.

innkeeper...?

tdw

Mon, Jun 17, 2013 : 3:18 p.m.

dading...that's the official legal term/charge

Honest Abe

Mon, Jun 17, 2013 : 2:45 p.m.

the public tends to not want to help the police, when the police does not want to help the public.
even though this article is about a petty crime, it makes a person angry when the police does not want to release information that the public should know! and has a RIGHT to know!
I understand their are circumstances where information is withheld, such as major crimes, but still, in the end, were entitled to ALL information and details.

Solitude

Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 4:39 p.m.

In the end, you are not entitled, either legally or morally, to much of anything in a situation like this, other than what FOIA allows, and the reporter certainly isn't obligated to do your legwork, or incur expense on your behalf. Also, exactly how would you be &quot;helped&quot; by the police releasing the name of the victim business?

nunya

Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 1:14 a.m.

Perhaps you could call the police department and ask them?

jcj

Mon, Jun 17, 2013 : 4:45 p.m.

Honest Abe says...
it makes a person angry when the police does not want to release information that the public should know! and has a RIGHT to know!
I say...,
it makes a person angry when persons want information that the public need not know! and has a does not have a RIGHT to know!

jcj

Mon, Jun 17, 2013 : 4:42 p.m.

We are not entitled to ALL information and details. Why will you delete this?

Honest Abe

Mon, Jun 17, 2013 : 2:40 p.m.

&quot; It is Ypsilanti police policy to typically not release the names of businesses affected by a crime.&quot;
So, even though a crime takes place in my town, and the police are paid with our tax dollars; they will not release the names? Well guess what? THEY HAVE TO!!
It's up to you, A2.Com, as reporters and journalist to press them for that information! Just because it is 'Ypsilanti Police Policy&quot; does not mean much.
FOI act? Have you heard of that before? Do you folks just turn around and walk away empty handed if the Police tell you &quot;We're not telling you anything&quot; ??
You folks at A2.Com need to dig and grind to get those answers!!!!!!!! Being persistent and relentless equals good reporting!

sellers

Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 1:07 p.m.

The crime took place at 700 W Cross Street. I'm not sure the name of the establishment matters and may be in the best interest of the establishment to not get a stigma just because of a random act (does not come across as targeted)
The crime did not personally harm anyone or put them in danger.

ArthGuinness

Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 3:47 a.m.

&quot;Not only do people apparently expect their news to be free today, they also expect to dictate the coverage.&quot;
Well put, snark12.

snark12

Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 12:30 a.m.

He's been down-voted because he's making his demand in a obnoxious fashion. (&quot;Have you heard of that before?&quot;) He doesn't have the right to know everything he wants at the exact moment he wants to know it. Providing the reading public with omniscience is not a valid business model for any media organization today.
I've noticed the AA.com comments are becoming full of people demanding answers to very specific questions. Not only do people apparently expect their news to be free today, they also expect to dictate the coverage.

jj45678

Mon, Jun 17, 2013 : 10:43 p.m.

Why are there 11 negative votes on a post that wants the reporter to press the police to give information? Isn't that what a reporter does (no offense to the current reporter; I was just wondering why the current commenter was down-voted for pointing it out).

Ian

Mon, Jun 17, 2013 : 6:12 p.m.

You are angry

ypsicat

Mon, Jun 17, 2013 : 5:51 p.m.

What possible difference does it make to you or any other person not involved in the crime which business it was?